Category Archives: water pollution

Illinois Will Glow In the Dark – After Frackers scatter radiation all over the land

Posted on by
Reply

All fossil fuels contain radiation somewhere in their masses. In other words in any given coal deposit there will be radioactive hotspots. The same is true of oil and natural gas. So with Fracking you can never tell when you will hit on of those hotspots in the shale. What this means is that all disposal sites for all the debris from the fracked wells must have radiation detectors to guarantee that any radioactive materials are deposited in sites designed for such materials.

 

Today (Wednesday, 11/27/13) is Day 13 of the 45-day Comment Period on Fracking.  We hope you’ll take a minute out of your holiday preparations to submit a comment to IDNR about fracking and radioactivity.

Topic – Radioactivity in fracking operations: More loopholes

  • Click the button: Subpart H: High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing Preparations and Operations (245.800-245.870)
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click:  245.850 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Storage, Disposal or Recycling, Transportation and Reporting Requirements
  • Submit your comment/s (below)
  • Click “Submit”

Comment:  Subsection (d)(1) of Section 245.850 provides for testing radioactivity only one time–during the early flowback stage–and only for “naturally occurring radioactive materials”.  The problems with this are identified below.

Problems:

  1. The proposed rules do not include any standards or protocols to follow if testing of flowback water shows unacceptable levels of radioactivity.
  2. The proposed rules do not require the testing of “produced water”, which is the water produced from a well in conjunction with oil or natural gas production.  This is where radioactivity is most likely to show up.  It should be noted that while these Rules have been purported to be the strongest in the nation, PA law requires the testing of produced water at two separate intervals.
  3. The proposed rules do not require testing for added radioactive materials, like depleted uranium, which can be used in the perforation/fracturing operation.
  4. The proposed rules do not test work areas for levels of radioactivity that would call for OSHA standards of occupational safety.

These deficiencies, cumulatively or singly, would pose a significant risk to the public health and safety, property, aquatic life, and wildlife, in violation of section 1-75(a)(2) of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Frackers Must Post Bonds To Drill – Doesn’t that mean they are going to do damage

Posted on by
Reply

Yes and the damage they will do is a lot more than 50,000 $$$ they initially put up.

 

Today (Thursday, 11/28/13) is Day 14 of the 49-day Comment Period on Fracking.  On this Thanksgiving Day, we are thankful for your comments to IDNR.
Topic – Inadequate Bonding Requirements for Fracking Companies
  • Click the button: Subpart B:  Registration and Permitting Procedures
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click:  245.220 Permit Bonds or Other Collateral Securities
  • Submit your comment/s (below)
  • Click “Submit”
Section 245.220 states, “The bond shall be in the amount of $50,000 per permit or a blanket bond of $500,000 for all permits.” (Section 1-65(a) of the Act)
Comment:  Plugging a well alone costs more than $50,000. In the study “Who Pays the Cost of Fracking?: Weak Bonding Rules for Oil and Gas Drilling Leave the Public At Risk”, PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center reported documented instances in which fracking wells have cost $700,000 or more to plug.  What is the motivation for the operator to not simply forfeit the bond when they shut down?  Furthermore, drilling companies typically frack a string of wells and not just one.  If they are cutting corners, using improper well-casings for example, or not sealing them correctly, the violation is likely to occur at each site.  One $500,000 bond for perhaps as many as 100 -150 well sites is as unacceptable as a $50,000 for one well site.
If the purpose of the bond is to protect the state from expenses incurred from an accident or violation, then the bond must be sufficient to cover those occurrences.  It makes no sense to offer a blanket bond—like some bargain basement “buy 2 pairs of socks and get a third pair free”.  Each well should be bonded individually and in the amount necessary to cover real and imagined damages as outlined by the PennEnvironment study.
To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.
510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

alt

:}

Go there and comment. More later.

:}

Fracking And Water Quality In Illinois – We don’t want any burning drinking water here

Posted on by
Reply

For now I have run out of thoughts about how bad the original law was and how terrible the rules coming from it are now.

 

Today (Tuesday, 11/26/13) is Day 12 of the 45-day Comment Period on Fracking.  We’re receiving great feedback from so many of you.  Thank you for writing comments and enlisting others to write too.  You rock!

You know the drill.  Here’s what to do to make today’s comment:

  • Go to: http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/OilandGas/Pages/OnlineCommentSubmittalForm.aspx
  • Click the button: Subpart F: Water Quality (245.600-245.630)
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click 245.600 Water Quality Monitoring
  • Submit your comments (below)
  • Click “Submit”

Section 245.600(b)(1) of the proposed rules provides for the testing and monitoring of water sources within 1,500 feet of the well site.  Among the many problems with the monitoring provisions, the proposed rules do not provide for testing along the horizontal leg of the well bore, which can extend for up to two miles from the well site.  This is a reckless disregard of the known risk of the underground migration of toxic fluids from a horizontal well bore, especially when hydraulic fracturing involves the use of explosive charges and especially in areas known for the risk of higher-magnitude earthquakes.

In a report issued on September 5, 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office acknowledged this risk:

“Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects.”–From: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks, U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-12-732 (2012), “What GAO Found”.

The agency mentioned specifically the risk of underground migration of toxic gases and chemicals:

“[A] number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals.”  (Emphasis added.)

Water testing and monitoring should be required all along the length of any horizontal well bores.

(The Government Accountability Office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.)

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

 

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Frackers Free To Violate Illinois – According to the State of Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

This was supposed to be the toughest set of regulations in the United States. This is an outrageous lie created by The Chicago Sellouts, better know as the gang of 5, the IEC, the NRDC, ELPC, the Sierra Club, and Faith in Place. They shall pay for this.

 

Today (Sunday, 11/24/2013) is Day 10 of the IDNR 45 day comment period on fracking.  Thank you for all of the comments you’re making!

Today’s comment is on what constitutes a “serious” violation.

Here’s what to do to make your comment today:

This section of the rules states that every applicant applying for a permit must disclose to the Department  “all findings of a serious violation or an equivalent violation under federal, Illinois or other state laws or regulations in the development or operation of an oil or gas exploration or production site via hydraulic fracturing by the registrant or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the registrant within the previous 5 years.”

  • What does IDNR define as a “serious” violation?  There is no guideline here making it easy for violators to claim that they didn’t report a violation because “we didn’t think it was serious.”  Instead, applicants should be required to disclose ALL violations alleged by public authorities and any fines or findings therefrom.
  • What is the reason for the 5 year time limitation?  When fracking violations potentially pose a threat to public health and safety, all previous violations and alleged violations should be considered when issuing a permit, regardless of how long ago they occured.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

 

:}

Go there and comment, More tomorrow.

:}

IDNR Cancels Hearing In Effingham – Day 7 of comments released here

Posted on by
Reply

The weather outside is frightful. Especially in Southern Illinois. So now you have all the time in the world to post comments to IDNR’s website.

 

Effingham, December 5, Holiday Inn 6:30 PM – CANCELED
• Decatur, IL December 17, Decatur Civic Center 6:30 PM
• Carbondale, December 19, SIUC Student Center 6:00 PM

Today is Day 7 of the 45 day Comment period on fracking in Illinois.  You’ve made it to the end of your first week.  Thank you for your comments!
Today’s comment is on the lack of provisions to address fracking in a tornado-ridden state.
Here’s what to do to make your comment today:
Comment:  Number of draft regulations proposed by Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources describing safety measures regarding tornado strikes on fracking sites: ZERO.  Number of tornados in Illinois in the last 10 years: 674.
Historically, the number and intensity of tornadoes in IL is very high.  “In fact, Illinois has experienced some of the worst tornados in US history.” Dr. Jim Angel, Illinois State Climatologist.
Every county in Illinois has had multiple tornados as demonstrated by the maps in the following links:
A big swath of Washington IL was flattened by a tornado on Sunday, 11/17/13. What would have happened if this tornado had hit an area of the state covered in fracking sites?  Debris from the tornado has been found over 150 miles away.  Imagine if that debris had included “temporarily” stored flowback water or tanks filled with frack fluid or produced water?
To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.
510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States
:}

altGo there and comment. More later.

:}

Illinois Department Of Natural Resources Is Incompetant – But we kinda knew that

Posted on by
Reply

This was forwarded to me by Doctor Lora and other people have pointed out that this has been going on. This is why in my first post I said go to  this website:

http://www.ilagainstfracking.org/

They will deliver a printed copy to IDNR which gets you around the whole computer/internet thing.

AND Dr. Laura is suggesting that you send your comments to JCAR who must approve the final regulations before they become law. I am not sure how effective that would be but it takes so little time it can’t hurt. But still run them through IDNR repeatedly if you have to.

If you want to echo my remarks at JCAR, I think it would be very helpful, thanks,  L

 


Urgent — After two days of complaints from many residents concerned about fracking that their comments to the IDNR on the fracking rules weren’t going through, we learned that NO COMMENTS ON RADIOACTIVITY HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH!   According to IDNR, there was a technical problem that has now been fixed, but that doesn’t address the fact that Comments from last Wednesday, yesterday and today did not get registered.
If they can’t get their website right, how are they going to get the rules right? 
Please share the comments below that were sent in by hundreds of residents with JCAR members, just in case the IDNR is trying to suppress comments about radioactivity in all fracking waste water and debris,

— General Summary of Rules on Radioactivity
Subpart H: High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing Preparations and Operations (245.800-245.870)
245.850 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Storage, Disposal or Recycling, Transportation and Reporting Requirements

Comment: Subsection (d)(1) of Section 245.850 provides for testing radioactivity only one time–during the early flowback stage–and only for “naturally occurring radioactive materials”. The problems with this are identified below.
Problems:
The proposed rules do not include any standards or protocols to follow if testing of flowback water shows unacceptable levels of radioactivity. 
The proposed rules do not require the testing of “produced water”, which is the water produced from a well in conjunction with oil or natural gas production. This is where radioactivity is most likely to show up. It should be noted that while these Rules have been purported to be the strongest in the nation, PA law requires the testing of produced water at two separate intervals.
The proposed rules do not require testing for added radioactive materials, like depleted uranium, which can be used in the perforation/fracturing operation.
The proposed rules do not test work areas for levels of radioactivity that would call for OSHA standards of occupational safety. 
These deficiencies, cumulatively or singly, would pose a significant risk to the public health and safety, property, aquatic life, and wildlife, in violation of section 1-75(a)(2) of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act.

— Produced Water Needs to Be Tested for Radioactivity (same subpart-H, and section: 245.850)
Notably absent from this section is a requirement for the testing of “produced water”, the fluid that returns from the well later during production and is most likely to contain radioactivity. Under the proposed rules, “produced water” can be stored on site and/or can be “recycled”, yet there is no testing requirement.
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technologically enhanced naturally occuring radioactive material are both found in “produced water”. See Technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials in the oil industry (TENORM), Nukleonika 2009; 54(1):3?9, and sources cited therein, especially for TENORM in produced water in the U.S., available athttp://www.nukleonika.pl/…/full/vol54_2009/v54n1p003f.pdf. See also
NORM is also found on scale in oil pipes and on fracking equipment. (See Kentucky Resources Council Proposes Comprehensive Plan For Investigating Radiological Contamination In Martha Oil Field. August 11, 2005.http://www.kyrc.org/webnewspro/112381723236086.shtml.)
IDNR’s definitions of “flowback water” and “produced water” are different. They are treated differently by both the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act and by the DNR Rules. The Department knows that produced water will be in contact with the naturally occurring radioactive elements in the ground for a longer period that the flowback and that it is much more likely to be radioactive. Therefore it should require it to be tested and handled accordingly.
Problems: Failure to test produced water for radioactivity is problematic for a variety of reasons including:
The health and safety of workers on the site who will be unaware of the levels of radioactivity they are being exposed to.  The health and safety of workers transporting produced water who will also be in the dark regarding the levels of radioactivity they will be exposed to. 
The risk of storing radioactive material in tanks not created for storing radioactive materials.
The risk of “recycling” produced water—radioactivity cannot be removed by recycling.
The risk to the public in transporting radioactive materials
Argonne National Laboratory recently cautioned about radiological doses: “It is commonly accepted that efforts should be undertaken at all times to keep radiological doses ‘as low as reasonably achievable,’ which is referred to as the ALARA principle or requirement.” Overview of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment (April 2011). DNR is failing to even adequately test for radioactivity and therefore, will not know the levels of radioactivity. How, then, can DNR adequately protect workers and the general public?
Revisions needed:
At a bare minimum, the rules should require that “produced water” be tested at two separate intervals across time for radioactivity. This is already required in Pennsylvania. The rules should also require that the requirements of the Illinois Low Level Radioactivity Waste Management Act be followed. 

— Rules need to include requirements or standards when radioactivity is found (same subpart-H and section:245.850)
The proposed rules include no follow-up requirements or standards if testing shows radioactivity levels in flowback to be high. In other words, these proposed rules treat flowback the same whether it is highly radioactive or not! DNR knows that naturally occurring radioactivity material occurs in Illinois oil and gas operations. See 62 Ill. Admin. Code secs. 240.860(e)(3), 240.861(k)(1)(C).
Revisions Needed: The rules must specify how flowback AND produced water will be treated if they test positive for radioactivity. The rules should also require that the requirements of the Illinois Low Level Radioactivity Waste Management Act be followed.
 
Sincerely, 
Frack Free Illinois
contact, Dr. Lora Chamberlain
drlora2@yahoo.com
773-486-7660

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

McADA Coming To Destroy Illinois – With all their fracking support services

Posted on by
Reply

So what? So I am picking on the frackers by company name now. That is too bad. What have I got to lose?  Here is the second comment that IPA released. I am leaving the dates on their actual emails for authenticity’s sake.

 

Today (Monday, 11/18/2013) is Day 4 of the IDNR 45 day comment period on hydraulic fracturing, aka “fracking.”  Will you please send IDNR a comment today?  It will take less than 5 minutes of your time and we will walk you through the process.  If you are opposed to fracking and worried that the weak regulatory bill will not protect Illinois residents and the environment, please take action.

Today’s comment is on the lack of Studies, Reports, or Underlying Data Used to Compose Rulemaking

Here’s what to do to make your comment today:

This comment is in reference to Page 3, Paragraph 6 of the Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act administrative rules, which states: “Published studies or reports, and sources of underlying data, used to compose this rulemaking: None”.

Simply put, the State of Illinois cannot have sound regulation without good data.

There is significant need for further study of horizontal hydraulic fracturing technology prior to it’s use in the State of Illinois. If the technology was as safe as the industry is claiming, why do there continue to be so many accidents and violations in states where fracking is already occuring?

Suggested resources include the twenty-four (24) pages of “References” included in U.S. EPA’s December 2012 Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.

See: U.S. EPA: Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report, (EPA 601/R-12/011 | December 2012), available at: http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy.

We would love it if you would let us know if you made a comment today!  And please feel free to call us with questions, comments, or to volunteer your time at (309) 827-9627.  Please share this with others you know and encourage them to make comments too.

In solidarity in the struggle for environmental justice,

Your friends at IPA

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More later.

:}

Global Warming Slams The Philippines – Yes I will be the first one to say it

Posted on by
Reply

Climatologists and weather people are always nattering on about how you can’t link global warming and a “particular’ WEATHER EVENT. Well I say that is super silly. This last hurricane to hit the Philippines (one of 4 already this season) was caused by global warming. I mean come on, the most powerful storm ever to strike land. When do adjectives like that add up to – caused by. Does the next biggest “ever” storm = global warming. Does a year of the “biggest” storms ever = global warming. Really when can I drop the parenthesis around all the adjectives and just say it out loud. Well I believe today is the day.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/521536/20131112/climate-change-warsaw-global-warming-typhoon-haiyan.htm#.UoJYfOInN5r

Climate Change Talks: Philippine Representative in Tears Over Haiyan, Receives Standing Ovation

By Reissa Su | November 12, 2013 7:51 PM EST

Typhoon Haiyan has dampened the spirits of climate change negotiators in an international talk on global climate change treaty in Warsaw. Delegates from around the world quickly suggested that the monster typhoon that wreaked havoc in the Philippines was enhanced by global warming.

Typhoon Haiyan has left Vietnam and is now on its way to China at a reduced strength. The super storm has displaced over 600,000 families in the Philippines  leaving most of Tacloban City devastated.

Lead negotiator for an alliance of small island nations Olai Ngedikes said that Typhoon Haiyan should be a “stark reminder” of the lack of action among governments in the world. He said the typhoon should motivate climate change negotiators to push an agreement in Warsaw.

Philippine representative to the UN climate change talks, Naderev Sano said he would fast or refrain from eating in solidarity with typhoon victims or until a meaningful solution will be reached. Mr Sano said the effect of climate change is madness. He added they can put an end to the madness by arriving at an agreement in Warsaw.

:}

Go there and see the video. Go there and read. More next week.

:}

Taiwan Does Solar In A Big Way – Asia in general understands the need to ditch coal

Posted on by
Reply

China is having smog days in some cities that have pollutants 50 times higher then allowed in the United States. Rates that can cause lung damage in mere minutes. So everyone in Asia is well aware that they need to switch from carbon fuels to renewables. Unfortunately, India has not learned the lesson yet.  But Taiwan definitely has.

http://solarbusiness.com.au/rise-rise-taiwan-solar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SolarBusinessServices+%28Solar+Business+Services%29

The rise and rise of Taiwan Solar

21 Oct, 2013

(I skipped the first couple of paragraphs)

Either way, this beautiful, mountainous, island nation has become a technological powerhouse in Asia. Driven initially by Japanese influences prior to World War 2, it has developed a highly successful semiconductor industry including wafer foundries, Integrated Circuit (IC) packaging and testing industries and was considered the world’s number one in 2011 in terms of IC revenues.

The Taiwanese semiconductor industry developed an early vertical integration model (upstream, midstream, and downstream sectors) including silicon materials and silicon wafering; midstream IC design, IC manufacturing, and IC packaging industries; and downstream computer, cellular phone, and consumable electrical product companies. The transition from semiconductor to photovoltaic industries was a therefore a logical and natural progression for Taiwan and explains why it has become so enormously important.

Fast forward to 2012 and the beginning of trade tariffs on Chinese made PV products in some countries.  With deep historical and business ties to China but technically an independent status, the importance of Taiwan’s PV manufacturing sector took a huge leap forward.

One example of the Taiwanese PV industries rise to PV success is WINAICO.  WINAICO’s parent company is Win Win Precise Material Co Ltd who established themselves in 2003 as a supplier and marketer to the semi-conductor industry. By 2007, it had created Winergy Solar and soon afterwards WINAICO, establishing a network of global sales offices and joint ventures to develop, market and deploy its PV technologies.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

Kill The Ocean And Kill Ourselves – Jacque Cousteau said it 60 years ago

Posted on by
Reply

It is as true today as it was then. We are so much closer to the edge today then we were then and it is frightening.

http://news.yahoo.com/business-urged-more-save-oceans-world-bank-study-041032438.html

Business urged to do more to save oceans: World Bank study

Reuters By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle

OSLO (Reuters) – Businesses should play a bigger role in helping to save depleted fish stocks as part of efforts to prevent irreversible damage to the oceans, a World-Bank backed report said on Wednesday.

The study, by 21 experts including government ministers, academics, conservationists and company leaders, said policies for protecting the oceans from over-fishing, pollution and climate change were often ineffective and fragmented.

It recommended more public-private partnerships involving companies, governments, local communities and others to protect ecosystems that are the main source of protein for a billion people, mainly in the developing world.

“A paradigm shift is needed in how we use and conserve ocean resources to address current inadequacies,” the report said.

The panel, set up by the World Bank, is one of several groups trying to find ways to deal with threats to the oceans. A separate Global 0cean Commission, for instance, is looking at how to safeguard the high seas, outside national jurisdictions.

:}

Please go there and think. More next week.

:}